Here’s a link to a Fox News report quoting Phil Cave, David Price, and Gary Myers stating that the military judge in the Lakin case won’t authorize discovery of documents concerning President Obama’s constitutional eligibility because such documents aren’t relevant to the missing movement and orders violation charges LTC Lakin now faces.

80 Responses to “Fox News quotes military justice practitioners stating that discovery in the Lakin case will not extend to evidence of President Obama’s eligibility”

  1. billvanallen says:

    No discovery is needed from Obama, BO is not “grandfathered” into POTUS/CINC eligibility by the explicit language of the US Constitution and since BO’s father (BO Sr.) was never a US citizen, BO is not a nbc (natural born citizen) eligible to be POTUS/CINC.

    Case closed other than affirming the language of the US constitution that Lakin swore to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

  2. John O'Connor says:

    I agree with you that this ought to be an open and shut case.

  3. CDR Kerchner says:

    Current Minister of Lands in the Kenyan Government Declares Obama “was born here in Kenya” and Is Not a “native American”

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/current-minister-of-kenyan-government.html

  4. Dwight Sullivan says:

    I wonder in how many other contexts you’d be willing to accept a statement of a Kenyan official with no apparent knowledge of the matter he’s discussing over two statements issued by the relevant official of a U.S. state government that she has personally seen the relevant documentation.

  5. Dwight Sullivan says:

    billvanallen — that’s wrong as a legal matter before the 14th Amendment’s adoption and is even more untenable as a legal matter after the 14th Amendment’s adoption. But for military justice purposes, it’s also profoundly irrelevant. Even if President Obama weren’t eligible to serve as President (he is eligible, of course), that ineligibility still wouldn’t be a defense to either of the charges against LTC Lakin.

    Do you seriously believe that the law right now allows any member of the U.S. military — including those fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq — to simply walk away from their duties without consequences?

  6. Anonymous says:

    One more quick thought before I go out and enjoy the weather before it rains. The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868. Let’s hypothesize that a former slave in Alabama impregnated a woman before July 9, 1868 and then died before that date. The woman delivered the baby in the state of Alabama after July 9, 1868. Is that baby constitutionally eligible to become president of the United States?

  7. Anonymous says:

    No discovery is needed from Obama, BO is not “grandfathered” into POTUS/CINC eligibility by the explicit language of the US Constitution and since BO’s father (BO Sr.) was never a US citizen, BO is not a nbc (natural born citizen) eligible to be POTUS/CINC.Case closed other than affirming the language of the US constitution that Lakin swore to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

    Hey Bill, can you point me to any source which says, in order to be a natural born citizen, you have to have both of your parents be citizens.

    Thanks so much.

  8. Anonymous says:

    So the Republican Governor of Hawaii and the head of the vital statistics in Hawaii, as well as an official Hawaiian document you don’t believe. But some two bit minister in Kenya makes a declaration, and you are convinced.

  9. gorefan says:

    I always find it interesting, that the birthers are wiling to take the words of a foreign politician without question, but reject the words of American politicians and officials. Weird, and somewhat unAmerican.

  10. Anon says:

    A bit like citing foreign law over domestic law . . .

  11. Anonymous says:

    I spent some time on his website, after which, I burned my eyes for the stupidity contained within, but they actually quote Dred Scott as well as some French writer from the 1750s as proof positive that it’s all about who your daddy is.

    Doesn’t matter if you are born here, doesn’t matter if your mom is a citizen, if your dad isn’t a natural born citizen, then you aren’t.

    So does make one wonder why they even care about a birth certificate, or what they expect to discover since even if the President proved he was born in Hawaii, it wouldn’t matter to them.

  12. glenn says:

    @ Anonymous April 24, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    Mario Apuzzo is considered by the Birthers to be the authority on this stuff.

    For fun, you can hear Mario Apuzzo and Charlie Kerchner discuss the Wong Kim Ark case. It was “bad law”. If you’re short on time, FF it a bit.

    mp3 available here:
    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/mommae-mario-and-kerchner-stumbling-over-wong-kim-ark/

  13. Uncommonsense says:

    But of course the President has already proven he was born in Hawaii. It’s just that the Birthers don’t want to accept that proof. They have 8 backup positions why they “think” he is not a natural born citizen. They like to move the goal posts. Fortunately, that is not the way US law works. Which is why the Birthers have now lost 67 plus cases in a row. Looks like Lakin will increase that total, while in the process throwing his military and medical career down the toilet. The wingnuts are very anxious to make it flush. Then they will move on, forget about Lakin, and his life will be ruined.

  14. billvanallen says:

    Apr 30, 2008 – Agreed to Senate. This is the latest version of the bill currently available on GovTrack.

    SRES 511 ATS

    110th CONGRESS

    2d Session

    S. RES. 511

    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

    April 10, 2008

    Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    April 24, 2008

    Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment

    April 30, 2008

    Considered and agreed to

    ——————————————————————————–
    RESOLUTION

    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

    Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

    Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

    Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

    Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

    Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

    Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

  15. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Sorry, the post two above this one was mine. I don’t know why it showed up as anonymous.

  16. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Right — so under that resolution, with which I agree, Senator McCain was constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Nothing in that resolution even suggests that a baby born in the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and one parent who isn’t isn’t eligible to become President. In fact, the general understanding at the time of the Constitution’s adoption and the de jure provision of the Constitution after the 14th Amendment’s adoption is that someone who is born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen even if neither parent is a U.S. citizen, as long as the parents were subject to the laws of the United States (i.e, weren’t here under diplomatic immunity). A baby born in the United States is a natural born citizen. President Obama was born in the United States. Therefore President Obama is a natural born citizen.

    But, again, all of that is irrelevant to the Lakin case because it doesn’t concern any fact in issue. Regardless of whether Presdent Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as President, LTC Lakin violated articles 87 and 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

  17. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Anon 1236, interesting observation that they rely on the Dred Scott case since their whole “whose your Daddy?” issue went out the window with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. (That said, it was also wrong under the Founding Fathers’ understanding at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, as demonstrated by this post from the excellent obamaconspiracy.org web site: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/the-eligibility-debate-in-congress/.) Anon 1236, thanks for looking at their web site so we don’t have to. :-)

  18. billvanallen says:

    D.S. — you appear to be mixing anchor baby citizen concept with POTUS/CINC (i.e. national defense/ DHS) “natural born citizen” — BO’s father was never a US citizen period. Ergo, BO is not eligible to be POTUS/CINC period.

    billvanallen

    p.s. The only thing I would add to the Lakin case to make the court martial decision even more meaningful would be to somehow have Col. Lakin become an unrestricted line officer rather than a restricted line staff officer — and thus be directly in the line of command from POTUS/CINC.

  19. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Uhm, no, billvanallen, I’m not.

  20. Robert Klein Engler says:

    WHO ARE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S FATHER AND MOTHER?

    –Robert Klein Engler

    Who is his father?

    In “Dreams of My Father,” Barack Hussein Obama II claims his father was the British/Kenyan man, Barack Obama. He credits this man with marrying his mother and fathering him in Hawaii.

    In her review of Obama’s book, Sharon Churcher maintains Obama’s father was also, “not just a deeply flawed individual but an abusive bigamist and an egomaniac, whose life was ruined not by racism or corruption but his own weaknesses.”

    Churcher then adds, “In his book, he attempts to put the best face on it. His father, he writes, lost his civil service job after campaigning against corrupt African politicians who had ‘taken the place of the white colonials.'”

    Years after Obama’s birth, On July 28, 2009, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, “I…have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    Dr. Fukino did not elaborate on how she arrived at her conclusions, saying only, “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.” This is unfortunate, because much needs to be added.

    What needs to be added most is Dr. Fukino’s definition of who is a natural born citizen. If she agrees with P. A. Madison who writes for the Federalist Blog on the issue of natural born citizenship, then we have a real, constitutional problem.

    Discussing the matter of natural born citizenship, P. A. Madison states the generally accepted definition: “…a natural born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States.”

    P. A. Madison echoes the work of John Greschak. Greschak writes in his article “What is a Natural Born Citizen of the Unites States?” The “Necessary and Sufficient Conditions” are as follows:

    “A given person is a natural born Citizen of the United States if and only if: 1. The person was born in the United States, 2. Both parents of the person were Citizens of the United States when that person was born, and 3. The person has been a Citizen of the United States, since birth.”

    If these are a valid definition, then the man who Barack Hussein Obama II claims is his father cannot bestow upon Obama natural born status, because that man was not a US citizen. Dr. Fukino should know that.

    Madison continues, “A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural born citizen of the United States. A child born to an American mother and alien father might be said to be a citizen of the United States…but never entitled to be a natural born citizen.”

    Perhaps Dr. Fukino is mistaking natural born for native born. “A native born citizen is a child who is born on US soil from foreign parents or born on foreign soil if one of the parents can transfer US citizenship according to certain conditions, i.e., 10 years residency in the USA, five of which after the age of 14.”

    If Barack Hussein Obama is a native born US citizen, then he can vote and hold a political office with the exception of President of the United States. That office has the constitutional requirement of “natural born” citizenship, among others.

    If we go along with what Obama says in his book, then “Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was British/Kenyan at the time of his birth. Whether or not he was born in Hawaii is irrelevant as the required three conditions to become President of the United States could never be met.”

    Unless Dr. Chiyome Fukino is making up her own definition of what a natural born citizen is, and is also ignorant of Barack Hussein Obama’s claim about who is his father, then she must have seen another name as “father” on Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate.

    She cannot say, “I…have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,” and at the same time mean Barack Obama is the father of the man she is talking about.

    Given the definition of natural born citizen above, it seems either Obama is confused about who his father is, or Dr. Fukino is confused about his natural born status. All the more reason to see Obama’s original birth certificate and other records.

    The confusion as to who is Barack Hussein Obama’s father leaves us with many unanswered questions about the man. Dr. Fukino must be asked under oath how she knows Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural born American citizen,” in order to dispel some of this confusion.

    While we wait for her testimony, we may also ask if Obama is not a natural born citizen, then how can he be commander-in-chief of the US armed forces? Add to that, what does General Petraeus know of this matter and when did he know it?

    Who is his mother?

    When we come to prove who was Obama’s mother, the same standards and most of the same documents about who was his father should apply. Yet, for many who believe Obama is a natural born US citizen, it is his mother who is more important than his father.

    They argue that Obama is a natural born US citizen solely because his mother was born in the United States. They claim this fact alone makes Barack Hussein Obama a natural born citizen.

    The pro-Obama camp uses their interpretation of federal court rulings on the question of citizenship to say that all one needs is a mother who was a citizen to be at birth a natural born US citizen. If this is the case, then Obama meets one of the US Constitution’s qualifications to be President.

    Unfortunately, this argument assumes what it needs to prove. It assumes we can document that Stanley Ann Dunham was in fact Obama’s mother. Certainly the same proof we need to show who was Obama’s father, must also pertain to his mother.

    What documents do we have that proves Stanley Ann Dunham was the mother of Barack Hussein Obama? We have Obama’s statement in his autobiographies, and we have other hearsay evidence. We do not have a birth certificate that would be conclusive proof.

    Amands Ripley writes in TIME that, “Obama’s mother was at least a dozen things. S. Ann Soetoro was a teen mother who later got a Ph.D. in anthropology; a white woman from the Midwest who was more comfortable in Indonesia; a natural-born mother obsessed with her work; a romantic pragmatist, if such a thing is possible.”

    We know that Stanley Ann Dunham was born November 29, 1942 in St. Francis Hospital, Wichita, Kansas and died, November 7, 1995 in Honolulu, Hawaii. We do not know if she was in fact the mother of Barack Hussein Obama. To know that we need Obama’s long form birth certificate, supposedly on file in Hawaii.

    Obama admits this long form document existed. “On page 26 of “Dreams of My Father”, Obama writes: ‘I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school.'” Unless it has been destroyed, this is what we must see to conclude Obama is a natural born US citizen by reason of his mother.

    To claim that “On August 4, 1961, at the age of 18, Dunham gave birth to her first child, Barack Obama II,” is to make a presumption without any valid documentation. It is possible that a woman married and divorced could adopt a child or accept a child fathered by one of her lovers. To prove this is not the case, we need valid documents.

    The documentation we do have are the FactCheck article “Born in the USA” and various hearsay evidence. This online article at FactCheck has been raised up to the level of political heaven, but if looked at closely is still in the purgatory of doubt, while the hearsay evidence is what it is. This paucity evidence is backed up by the questionable COLB seen on line, and statements by Hawaii officials.

    There are many doubts about the COLB available online. This is the very document that claims to prove Obama was born in the United States, yet because of many see it as a forgery and such COLBs were issued in 1961 to children born outside Hawaii, it is not a necessary and sufficient document that establishes for certain Obama is a natural born US citizen.

    Furthermore, statements by Hawaii officials not given under oath are unreliable. Because the source of the documents in question are sealed, it is impossible for officials to disclose their underlying validity without breaking Hawaiian laws.

    This means that all the doubts that are attached to the documents that attempt to prove who is Obama’s father, are also attached to proofs as to who is his mother. You cannot argue that Obama is a natural born US citizen because his mother was a citizen when we have no conclusive proof who his mother was.

    Without an actual long form birth certificate from Obama, we remain as uncertain about his mother as we are uncertain about his father. To claim that Obama is a natural born US citizen because his mother was a citizen is an act of faith, not a conclusion based on solid, available evidence.

    ###

  21. Anonymous says:

    Great, so first I burn my eyes after seeing the stupid on the website and now you want me to burn my ears by listening to it?

    No thanks! I need some sort of sensory perception left.

  22. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Mr. Engler,

    You raise guano-crazy conspiracy theories to a whole new level. But Dr. Fukino could have stopped at “born in Hawai’i.” As long as his parents weren’t foreign diplomats with diplomatic immunity, under Supreme Court case law, that is enough for President Obama to be a natural-born citizen. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). See also U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Wait, no you even doubt his mother is who is mother is?

    Let me guess you think his actual parents are Satan and a jackal and his real name is Damien.

  24. Anonymous says:

    that should be:

    Wait, now you even doubt his mother is who his mother is?

  25. Anonymous says:

    James Madison, “Father of the Constitution”:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.”

    The guy who wrote the Constitution disagrees with you Bill, but hey, instead why not keep focusing on an 18th century French writer instead of Madison.

  26. billvanallen says:

    Mario Apuzzo but often when his site is active even more so http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
    legal blogger Leo Donofrio have the Wong Kim Ark issue nailed.

    But again, for this case and controversey; i.e. criminal military court martial trial of Col. Lakin’s constitutional oath of office performance of duty purposes.

    BO’s father was not a citizen therefore BO is not eligible to be POTUS/CINC since he is and never was a natural born citizen of the United States of America — wherever on the planet he was born and by whatever the citizenship of the mother.

  27. Dwight Sullivan says:

    LTC Lakin is not a colonel and never will be.

    The citizenship of President Obama’s father is irrelevant to the legality of the orders that LTC Lakin chose to disobey.

    Do you take the position that no order issued to any member of the U.S. military anywhere in the world today, including Iraq and Afghanistan, is invalid? Does every U.S. servicemember have the discretion to obey or disobey any order, or would it actually be impermissible for a U.S. servicemember to obey an order?

    Wouldn’t we all like to see what would happen at Parris Island if a recruit were to decline to obey a D.I’s order to, say, do 20 pushups because billvanallen says that because President’s father was Kenyan, the order to drop and give him 20 is invalid?

  28. Anonymous says:

    CDR K (or is it KKK) and his subversive birther bunch are probably AQUSA (al quaeda in the USA-affiliated. They must think their strategy will somehow weaken the military and cause such chaos that the evil empire will falter. Such simpletons. Any military types affiliating with them should be investigated for plotting to overthrow the govt.

  29. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Here’s the holding from Wong Kim Ark. It uses the term “natural-born” twice and recognizes that a baby born to not one, but two aliens in the United States is a natural-born U.S. citizen as long as the father wasn’t a foreign sovereign, foreign diplomat, or an enemy national. For anyone looking at this issue rationally, it destroys the argument that the President could be rendered constitutionally ineligible to serve as President due to his father’s lack of U.S. citzenship:

    The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher’s case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: ‘Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,-it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.’ Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster’s Works, 526; U. S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92.

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693-94 (1898).

  30. Trevor says:

    Bill,

    So many misconceptions so little time,

    First, since Lakin is in the Army, the phrase “unrestricted line officer” is irrelevant as it pertains to the Navy.

    Second, even if in some bizarre other universe, Lakin makes the jump from Army to Navy that doesn’t effect what he is, to whit, a medical officer and not a teeth arm/combat line officer

    Third, being a combat line officer does not somehow miraculously make the POTUS your line commander in any different manner to a non combat line officer

    Fourth, even if in this alter universe of yours he makes the jump it doesn’t alter the criminal acts he is charged with one iota, deliberately missed posting and deliberately and defiantly defied orders of his immediate chain of command.

    As for your Vattel inpired personal prejudice that “NBC” citizenship somehow flows from the father, utter BS, no legal basis and not accepted by any other than a Birfer.

    It’s reaaaaaaaalllllll simple, there are 2 and only 2 types of of US citizen, Naturalized and The Rest. The Rest get to run for President.

    There is no third category, no Natural but not Native…..don’t like it, tough, it’s the law and the Constitution. Don’t like it, try and convince enough politicians to get an Amendment to the Constitution passed.

  31. CDR Kerchner says:

    Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html

  32. Rob M says:

    Anon 1156,

    Yes, the 14th amendment says “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…” It makes no reference whatsoever to heritage- a citizen can be born to non-citizen parents. (It also makes no reference to whether they or their parents were born before or after the adoption of the Amendment).

  33. Dwight Sullivan says:

    The Supreme Court of the United States expressly used the term “natural-born” in holding that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen. The Supreme Court noted that at common law, a child born in Britain of two non-British parents was a “natural-born” British subject. Mr. Apuzzo cites precisely nothing in support of his idiosyncratic theory that only the child of two U.S. citizens at the time of birth can be considered a natural born citizen. And while mentioning Wong Kim Ark in the title of his post and once in its body, he doesn’t bother to explain why it doesn’t blast his own theory out of the water.

  34. billvanallen says:

    Lakin case fortunes will not rise or fall on Wong Kim Ark.

    But, I’ll let Cdr Kerchner reply to the Wong Kim issue if he so decides to join this thread.

    Mixing political citizen status apples with oranges is not limited to the 21st century. And of course Wong Kim Ark was not a POTUS/CINC eligibility case but there certainly was an attempt to muddy the semantic / definition of US citizenship.

  35. Rob M says:

    Military career yes, medical career maybe not so much. Pretty sure when the shackles of national service are lifted from him, he’ll still be able to have a lucrative career in private practice.

  36. CDR Kerchner says:

    Obama “born here in Kenya” and is not a “native American, per James Orengo, Kenya’s Minister of Lands and Member of the Parliament.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/current-minister-of-kenyan-government.html

  37. Dwight Sullivan says:

    billvanallen and I just achieved common ground. I agree that LTC Lakin’s “fortunes will not rise or fall on Wong Kim Ark.” Because while the Supreme Court stated in Wong Kim Ark that a baby born in the United States (with certain limited exception, such as being the child of a foreign diplomat) is a “natural-born” citizen, that issue won’t arise in LTC Lakin’s court-martial. Because LTC Lakin is guilty of missing movement and violating orders regardless of whether President Obama is or is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president. For that reason, the military judge will reject any effort to litigate that question, thus rendering Wong Kim Ark irrelevant to the Lakin court-martial.

  38. CDR Kerchner says:

    Obama maybe a “Citizen of the U.S.” (he obtained that by marrying Michelle) but he is not a “natural born Citizen of the U.S.” as is required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

  39. CDR Kerchner says:

    ‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’ as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

  40. CDR Kerchner says:

    President George Washington Consulted the Legal Treatise “Law of Nations” as America’s New President

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/george-washington-consulted-legal.html

  41. Anonymous says:

    Guano-crazy indeed. The next natural (native?) tier is, what, “who is BHO?” You’re naturally (natively?) trying to appeal to what you perceive as readers’ innate prejudices by using “Hussein” every time you mention YOUR president’s name. Deal with it – he’s your president for the next few years (and the armed forces’ CINC). Make yourself useful – put your energy into the 911 truther movement – I doubt they’d even accept you, though. And the bottom line – it doesn’t get your boy Lakin anywhere. He’s going down and loons like you brought him down.

  42. CDR Kerchner says:

    There are five (5), not two (2), types of citizenship mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

  43. CDR Kerchner says:

    Euler Logic Diagram Analysis of Natural Born Citizenship Term In Article II of Our U.S. Constitution

    http://thebirthers.org/misc/logic_files/image035.jpg

  44. Dwight Sullivan says:

    CDR Kerchner,

    Are you or were you a member of the U.S. Navy? If so, let me ask you the question I’ve previously posted but to which I’ve received no response: is every member of the U.S. military today free to disobey any orders issued by any military superior? Could the entire crew of any Navy ship walk away during the next port call with no fear of repercussion?

  45. CDR Kerchner says:

    Expert linguistic analysis of the term “natural born Citizen” by John Greschak

    http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/synopsis.htm

  46. CDR Kerchner says:

    Vattel’s Influence on the term “Natural born Citizen”.

    http://www.thebirthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

  47. CDR Kerchner says:

    THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS

    FROM THE FRENCH OF MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.

    http://famguardian.org/Publications/LawOfNations/vattel.htm

    Comment/footnote in this website about the preeminent legal treatise of the last half of the 1700s.

    “Why is this document VERY important, you might ask? For the following reasons:

    * The Founding fathers relied upon this document in drafting the U.S. Constitution.
    * The U.S. Supreme Court has frequently referred to this text as an authority on how nations and states should relate to each other in its rulings.”

  48. JTS says:

    Bill: No offense, but I don’t even follow your logic. The President, born in a U.S. state in 1961, is not a naturally born citizen because he has one parent who’s not a citizen even though he was born in a way thousands if not millions of other naturally born citizens whose parents were immigrants? What does that make him then? Last time a checked, there were only two types of citizens in the U.S.: natural born and naturalized. Naturalized citizens are those citizens who were born outside the United States in another soverign country. The President was not because he was born in 1961 in a soverign U.S. state, duely admitted to the Union in 1959. Ergo, he’s a natural born citizen. I think I learned that in 2nd Grade Social Studies, and I really don’t want to take up the time to look up the legal citiations for all of these concepts, especially when I believe that Col. Sullivan has widely quoted them extensively on this site.

    Col. Sullivan (Sir, I apologize if I got your rank wrong–I’m picking it up from other posters): I’ve read all your posts on this subject and appreciate the amount of legal research you’ve done on a topic that should really be a “non issue.” I would like to thank you for providing a 100% coherent, logically, and legally sound argument that the President is a Natural Born Citizen and in addition, why that is not even relevant in this case as a matter of professional development for those of us who might have to deal with this nonsense in the future. Unfortunately, I’ve sadly learned that when people think irrationally, they don’t respond well to logic even if that logic is 100% sound. No matter how many times scholars and lawyers with actual authority post something that will stand up to the scruitiny of the courts, that is legally correct, and makes sense to all of us who are lawyers, if someone dosen’t want to accept logic and fact, then they won’t. However, I have to say that I respect those who take the time to respond soundly to these irrational arguments because Lord knows, I would have stopped trying a long time ago once I realized just how deaf the ears of some of those listening really were. Nevertheless, I enjoy your posts on this subject and will continue to read them for my own professional development. One final thought as an aside, but you have appeared to have touched a nerve somewhere with your past posts on the subject from the number of people who have drifted to this blog out of cyberspace that don’t seem to understand anything about military law whatsoever.

  49. joe says:

    You know not of what you speak.

    While it is not worth arguing the birther denial issues, perhaps at least you cold learn the chain of command. Restricted line officer? LTC Lakin is in the Army, not the navy.

  50. Anonymous says:

    I’m curious Bill, since LTC LAkin can’t follow orders because they are all illegitimate since President Obama is illegitimate, is he also refusing to accept his military pay since that also flows from an illegitimate budget signed by an illegitimate President?

    Why does he even show up to work at all since any order to do so is also illegitimate?

    Why does he follow some orders but not follow the order to deploy?

  51. Anonymous says:

    It was only a matter of time until CDR KKK started posting comments to the only one who cares – himself. Maybe that van halen dude too.

  52. glenn says:

    @ Anonymous April 24, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    Chicken! :)

  53. smokin' joe says:

    LTC Lakin, if you are out there, read the above posts. These are the people you have associated with.

    No amount of facts, law, or reasoning will ever convince them. They are in denial. Your court-martial advances their cause in only one way. It gives them publicity. It will not, no matter what anyone has told you, ever prove or disprove what anything about the President’s birth.

    They will not be there for you when you go down.

    In a few years, they will fade, and won’t even be a footnot in history.

    Your choices, however, while adding nothing to their cause, will have profound effects on you. There will be a reckoning for what you have already done, but you can still limit the damage.

    Please reconsider, and bring no further shame to the Army.

  54. Dwight Sullivan says:

    I can’t believe I just wasted my time reading that. Mr. Apuzzo misspelled Justice Gray’s name. And his understanding of Justice Gray’s opinion of the Court is no more accurate.

    Mr. Apuzzo writes: “In both of these cases [Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Wong Kim Ark], the Supreme Court did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment to define what a ‘natural born Citizen’ is. Rather, both courts said that the meaning of that term must be found by resort to the ‘common law.'” Let’s look at what Justice Gray actually wrote: “The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory . . . The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898).

    Also, Mr. Apuzzo ignores a section of Wong Kim Ark that does exactly what he says Wong Kim Ark doesn’t do. Justice Gray wrote: “The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 654. Mr. Appuzo appears to have missed that “except” part.

    Justice Gray then proceeds to analyze British common law and concludes that the 14th Amendment was consistent with it by providing citizenship by birth regardless of the parents’ citizenship. And the Wong Kim Ark decision expressly considered who was a “natural-born” subject by reasons of birth. For example, Justice Gray wrote for the Court: “Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655.

    Later, the decision returns to this theme: “Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics [sorry, I don’t know how to do italics in a comment; I’ll capitalize the parts that are italicized in the Wong Kim Ark opinion]: ‘”BRITISH SUBJECT” MEANS ANY PERSON WHO OWES PERMANENT ALLEGIANCE OT THE CROWN. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the crown. “NATURAL-BORN BRITISH SUBJECT” MEANS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH. SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPTIONS HEREINAFTER MENTIONED, ANY PERSON WHO (WHATEVER THE NATIONALITY OF HIS PARENTS) IS BORN WITHIN THE BRITISH DOMINIONS IS A NATURAL-BORN BRITISH SUBJECT.'” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 657. (The two exceptions deal with enemy aliens and diplomats.) The Supreme Court observed that that had been “the law of England for the last three centuries.” Id. at 658. The Court continued, “The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as orginally established.” Id.

    That really puts this issue to bed, doesn’t it?

    But wait, there’s more. Wong Kim Ark tells us that the same rule applied on the Continent: “But at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, ‘citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,’ and ‘mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicile’ . . . .” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 666. [Aside: Garner would love that “But” at the beginning of not merely a sentence, but a paragraph in an 1898 SCOTUS opinion.]

    The Supreme Court concluded: “There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that at the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States there was any settled and definite rule of international law generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.”

    In other words, Mr. Apuzzo’s musings on the “natural born Citizen” requirement are deeply flawed. But don’t take my word for it. Read Mr. Apuzzo’s post and then read Wong Kim Ark and decide for yourself whether he has accurately characterized what the Supreme Court said in Wong Kim Ark.

  55. Dwight Sullivan says:

    JTS, thank you for your kind words. I’ve always enjoyed your comments and I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with us.

  56. anonymous says:

    “Greschak writes in his article “What is a Natural Born Citizen of the Unites States?” The “Necessary and Sufficient Conditions” are as follows:”

    Greschak can write whatever he wants in his article, as can you. What matters is not what we opine but what the courts have decided over time. You can quibble, you can rail, but it won’t change that.

  57. Patrick McKinnion says:

    Wait a minute.

    It’s been a part of birther theology for sometime that a woman automatically loses her US citizenship when she marries a non-US citizen (look at Philip Berg’s claims that Stanley Ann Dunham lost her citizenship upon marriage to Lolo Soetoro)

    If that’s the case, then by your logic Michelle Obama lost her US citizenship, because, after all, the birthers seem to believe US citizenship is so fragile that anything can take it away. And you do claim that Obama has that evil British/Kenyan citizenship from his father that is just so powerful it stops US citizenship dead in it’s tracks.

    Unless, of course, this is just more nonsensical chatter from the birthers to try and create more categories of US citizenship than really exist, in an attempt to explain away that someone they don’t like is in the White House being President.

  58. glenn says:

    Nice that the Birthers have come to put their insanity on display.

    Can LTC Lakin claim insanity defense?

  59. aarrgghh says:

    oh my, what do we have here? it looks like a bunch of birfers doing what they do best: pooping uncontrollably all over someone else’s yard. they just can’t help themselves, can they?

  60. Patrick McKinnion says:

    That would be the copy he checked out (and never returned) two years after the Constitution was ratified. And eight years BEFORE the English translation that had the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” was published.

    I can’t see why the birthers keep claiming the founders cited an English version of “Law of Nations” that didn’t come out until ten years AFTER the Constitution was ratified. It’s more likely they read the original French version of de Vattel’s work – which doesn’t contain the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” at all.

  61. gorefan says:

    This website, you link to, says:

    “If it was not Blackstone who they relied on for defining the term Natural Born Citizen, then the only remaining source is from Vattel. Many of these detractors say we are reaching to extremes to use Vattel, as the source of a Natural Born Citizen clause. Some of there arguments are that the Law of Nations is a obscure mention to an idea, found in Article I, Section 8. What they fail to mention that this phrase is capitalized, if it was an inference to a general idea, it would not have been capitalized. School children know well the rules of capitalization, and the use of the capitalized Law of Nations would indeed make it uses consistent with a title of a publication.”

    I presume this is talking about Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10:

    “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”

    This section actually comes from Blackstone’s Commentaries;

    “Book the Fourth – Chapter the Fifth : Of Offences Against the Law of Nations”

    And Blackstone defined one of the offenses as “Piracy”. And defines piracy as “THE offence of piracy, by common law, consists in committing those act of robbery and depredation upon the high seas, which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to felony there.”

    The website also references Thomas Jefferson’s drafting of the citizenship law of Virginia. But they fail to notice the first line, “that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act,” are citizens. There is no mention of the status of the parents. This clearly shows Jefferson drew from Common Law in drafting the legislation.

  62. Phil Cave says:

    Brother Bill C. commenting to an earlier post on the same subject raised the intriguing question of the Art. 32 IO, saying that the president’s birth certificate should be produced (not discovered, remember R.C.M. 701 doesn’t apply at a 32) under R.C.M. 405(f)(10) (that’s how I interpreted the question). But there would be some limitations: it has to be reasonably available under R.C.M. 405(g), and reasonably relevant. I would anticipate that the government would say it’s not relevant, and by the way, “he’s got it already.” So the IO will have to move on.
    The next step is an Article 39(a), UCMJ, motions session to compel discovery and presumably a new Article 32. The question for the military judge will be whether the requested evidence is material, necessary, and relevant to the defense. Here’s is where I think even the most defense “friendly” military judge has to say no, based on the law.
    At that point, if he wishes to preserve the issue LTC Lakin must plead not guilty. I think a guilty plea would waive the issue, and I would not anticipate a non-guano-loco SJA recommending a PTA with a conditional guilty plea to preserve the issue for appeal.
    Assuming I’m correct, and I know strange things happen, LTC Lakin’s case collapses after the first motions session.
    He could writ the issue, but would not the appellate court give a one or two line, “denied, but without prejudice to raising the issue in the normal course of review.”
    Would it not be the same District Court for the District of Columbia that would have to decide some sort of federal filing? ML, I defer to you on that. But if so, that court doesn’t seem particularly friendly to quixotic filings, and would likely defer back to the military justice process anyway. And after that, well ML explained that process in an earlier post.
    And isn’t the president’s current status a political question at this point which courts for various prudential reasons avoid ruling on?
    Cheers.

  63. Patrick McKinnion says:

    Ah, yes, that chart that Mountain Goat came up with, with the idea that a “Natural Born Citizen” is the result of both Jus Soli AND Jus Sanguinis on the part of both parents. (Blood and Soil, or in the original German, Blud und Boden)

    The problem is there’s nothing in US law, the US legal codes, or 200+ years of US case law to base these five states of citizenship on. Under US law, citizenship is a binary state. If one is a US citizen, then one is either a Natural Born citizen (i.e. citizenship granted at birth due to being born in the US or to a US citizen parent overseas under stated conditions) or one is a naturalized citizen (citizenship adopted by choice as an adult.

    Natural Born citizens can be president. Naturalized ones cannot.

    Many birthers – including you – have tried to argue otherwise in the courts. The fact that your case is in appeals shows that the lower court didn’t accept your theory either.

  64. Sterngard Friegen says:

    Kerchner and Apuzzo, whose theory is not LCOL Lakin’s theory, by the way, think the qualifications clause for POTUS reads as follows:

    “No person except a natural born Citizen whose parents were both Citizens when he was born, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    Well, it doesn’t read that way. And some of the best minds — and writers in the English language in the late 18th century — were perfectly capable of writing that if they wanted to. They didn’t want to.

  65. DC Steve says:

    Birthers: Maybe you have noticed by now, but the readers of this blog are a little smarter than the average bear. We won’t simply injest purported facts just because you try to say them authoritively. And, hopefully you’ve realized that that on the law, your flint lock musket theories are outmatched in COL Sullivan’s 50 caliber world.

    Still waiting for an answer to COL Sulivan’s question. Don’t have one…

    Then go post your theories wherever the weak-minded congregate.

  66. gorefan says:

    What I like about Greschak’s site is the link to the naturalization acts of Massachusetts. The acts interchangeable use the terms “natural born subjects” and “natural born citizens”. So we know that the terms meant the same thing to the founding generation.

  67. Anonymous says:

    Flintlock?

    I’m thinking more sling and pebble.

    (Cue the Goliath comments from the sanctimonious birthers)

  68. joe says:

    Here’s another question for birthers: Why do you care? All of your arguments, even if true, amount to technicalities. For this, you want to reject democracy, and overturn the decision of millions? All so we get Biden?

    And why do you always cite a Senate resolution showing that McCain meets your standards? (Since resolutions are not law, not binding, just some Senators’ point of view – and surely don’t change the constitutional requirements for president).

    There was a time for you to advance your theories, and file your lawsuits. That time ended in January 2009.

    Now, since the president will never be removed from office on your theories, the only result of your campaign, is to undermine the legitimacy of the office, and the man.

    That is why you conduct is seditious (but harmless since it is – – guano crazy – -)

  69. John O'Connor says:

    This is the dumbest CAAFlog thread I have ever read that didn’t have No Man prominently involved.

  70. Phil Cave says:

    The reference to an unrestricted line officer is a likely give away. Only the Navy has such a category.

  71. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Since JO’C wouldn;t be complete without it, I cannot believe I just wasted the last 10 minutes of my life reading these comments. But, i did so I must live with the facts–something it is readily apparent a segment of the commenters on this thread are unable to do. Let’s simplify this argument to what will happen:
    (a) appointment of an Art. 32 IO soon. The IO has no defense subpoena power and will reject the defense based on eligibility. At best the IO notes the issue in the Art. 32 report;
    (b) charges are referred by Military Dist. Wash. (I think);
    (c) the government gives the defense its entire file;
    (d) defense requests the birth certificate in a motion;
    (e) military judge rules that (1) de facto officer doctrine makes the orders to LTC Lakin valid and (2) the deployment order from SecArmy (or his designee) is valid (again de facto officer doctrine) and thus it is not relevant to missing movement;
    (f) appeals, files an ex writ, ACCA (thanks for the correction Anon) denies;
    (g) files habeas in Fed Dist Ct, fed dist ct denies, while C-M continues, based on COuncilman v. Schlesinger and unlikely success on merits (de facto officer again)
    (h) C-M convicts, possibly dimissal, LTC Lakin loses everything
    (i) appeals raise same issues, lose, again;
    (j) more habeas, same results;
    (k) c-m final 3 years from now
    (l) another election occurs, still no birth certificate produced during the C-M.
    The End.

  72. Patrick McKinnion says:

    You did notice the link you provided was to the 1883 Chitty edition, with was based on the 1797 English translation. Which was published ten years AFTER the Constitution was ratified.

    You might want to check your sources.

  73. Norbrook says:

    Having spelunked through the various caves covered in guano left by the birthers, I’ve seen any number of “options” they seem to think will happen. Principally it comes down to “the election will be voided, and we’ll get another election called.” Of course, no such thing would happen – it would mean President Biden, or in an extreme case – President Pelosi. You should watch their heads explode when you tell them that.

  74. Phil Cave says:

    Yes.

  75. anon says:

    I think you meant ACCA

  76. Rob M says:

    “This is the dumbest CAAFlog thread I have ever read.”

    Agreed (without the qualifier). Normally this blog is a cut above and the comments here are worth reading, but every now and then we’re reminded that it IS still the internet.

  77. Yellow Rose says:

    On the issue of the types of citizens:
    It helps to know that the two types of US citizens are native born and naturalized.

    “Federal law provides that those who are born in any of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, the former Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and Guam are all native-born citizens, including the children of an American Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or any other tribal member.” http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Citizens

    If a person gains citizenship by Statute or through the action of a Court, they are a naturalized citizen. Children born outside of the US to US citizen parents are considered naturalized at birth.

    http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/35-naturalization-and-citizenship.html

    “persons statutorily naturalized at birth abroad because one of their parents was a citizen”

    “Naturalization has been defined by the Supreme Court as “the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen” Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer 143 U.S. 135, 162 (1892).”

    “[a] naturalized citizen . . . becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is, to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.” Chief Justice Marshall

    In addition:
    Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 738 738 (1824)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/738/case.html
    “A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native.”

    Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 540 540 (1840)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/39/540/case.html
    “…was a native citizen of the United States, having been born in the State of New Hampshire.”

    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html
    “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive.”

    (Note that the rights of native citizens and naturalized citizens are the same. Therefore, eligibility for the Presidency is not a right of citizenship.)

    Native born citizens are those born on US soil.

    Naturalized citizens are those who are are naturalized at birth by statute, or those who are born non-citizens, apply for citizenship, and are made US citizens by a court.

    Natural born citizens are native citizens that have two US citizen parents at the time of birth.

    If you actually read the ruling in Wong Kim Ark, the court stated that he was a “citizen”. They did not say he was a “natural born citizen.
    “whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a *citizen* of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

    The Binney quote in WKA –
    “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” simply says that a child born in the country of alien parents is a citizen in spite of not being a “natural-born child of a citizen” (a natural born citizen) because that child was born in the country, just like the natural born citizen child was.

    From WKA –
    “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.”
    and Minor v Happersett said this:
    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country *of parents who were its citizens* became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or *natural-born citizens*, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include *as citizens* children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

  78. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Yellow Rose, have you actually read the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark? If you have, then you know that the Supreme Court repeatedly stated that one is a “natural-born” citizen or subject of a country if one is born there, even of two alien parents, as long as the father wasn’t an enemy alien, foreign sovereign, or diplomat.

    Also, do you realize that if what you say above is right, then Senator McCain is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President?

  79. Gorefan says:

    Y. R. – like all good birthers, you have totally misread the Minor v Happersett opinion. The justices are clearly only listing the arguments about citizenship. Everyone agrees that a child of two citizen parents is a citizen. And some “authorities” also believe that children born to aliens are citizens. The court is only describing the various ideas on citizenship.

    I notice you left out the most important part of the paragraph, was that intentional? Here let me complete it for you:

    “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

    The court neither agreed nor disagree with the premise that a child born in the US of aliens parents is a citizen.

  80. Trevor says:

    Oh Yellow Rose you really need to copy ‘n paste a little better.

    As an example lets pick one of your cut n copy…….

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/738/case.html
    “A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native.”

    You conveniently neglected to look a little lower in the page where it says…….

    Categories of Citizens: Birth and Naturalization
    The first sentence of � 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.1230 This contemplation is given statutory expression in � 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,1231 which itemizes those categories of persons who are citizens of the United States at birth; all other persons in order to become citizens must pass through the naturalization process. The first category merely tracks the language of the first sentence of � 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment in declaring that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens by birth.

    Which makes Obama…….Go on, say it, you know you can……

    Muppet.